"If you believe the government should be accountable to you and not you to the government, then you are a Republican!" -- Arnold Gropenegger

If you don't know that, in America, we, the People, are the government, then you are a Republican.

I won't even break my wrists typing about how the Bush administration has been the least accountable administration in the history of the United States.

It's really not worth the carpal tunnel surgery to type all that crap about the secrecy of this administration and its refusal to honor Freedom of Information Act requests, or about how, for instance, Max Cleland was villified by this government for voting against Bush's version of Homeland Security because it contained no whistle blower provision--the very kind of provision that makes government accountable to the people and the very kind of provision hated by George W. Bush.

It's not worth it to hurt my hands over secrecy freaks like Dick Cheney going all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent the American people from knowing who formed our energy policy.

It's just not worth the ache to type about George Bush signing an executive order basically repealing an act of Congress to allow the American people access to presidential papers(in particular, his father's papers, as long as he's in office).

It would take far too long to type this administration's long, long record of fighting being any way accountable to the American people.

What idiots. What bullshitters.

What fools applaud for this crap? What rubes cheer on their own abuse?

Asked if he would act preemptively against Iran just as he did against Iraq, the president said the Iraq war came only after "we had tried diplomacy" with Saddam Hussein for over a decade.

"The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said, noting that the diplomatic effort was only starting in the case of Iran.

Yes, we had tried diplomacy for over a decade with Iraq and it totally failed to convince Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction, as demonstrated by Saddam's total lack of weapons of mass destruction.

What a failure!

No wonder Bush had to order the U.N. inspectors out of the country in order to unleash a decapitation strike on a restaurant of people who were not Saddam!

That diplomacy had utterly failed.

Unlike Bush's diplomacy with, say, North Korea, for instance. Which has yielded American concessions along with brand new North Korean nuclear weapons!

Or Bush's diplomacy with Iran, for that matter. Which has yielded an Iran threatening to make brand new nuclear weapons if the U.S. doesn't back off!

So, you can see how Iraq was totally different than Iran or North Korea.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had yielded to diplomatic measures, and, therefore, had to be urgently invaded.

Whereas, Iran and North Korea not only have weapons of mass destruction but they're actively selling them and co-operating with international terrorists! And, therefore, diplomacy is more appropriate.

So, Bush is right again! The circumstances are not the same.

And any idiot could see why he would place nearly the entire United States military in Iraq, rather than Iran or North Korea.

As television cameras focused on Moore in the gallery, McCain continued his prepared remarks: "Don't let anyone tell you otherwise -- not our political opponents, and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe ..."

Disingenuous? Disingenuous, did you say?

Most troubling are the outright misrepresentations Giuliani inflicts on John Kerry. For weeks, the Bush campaign has claimed that Kerry called himself an "antiwar" candidate on Iraq. Chris Matthews, the interviewer who actually used that word, has pointed out that Kerry did not. Other news organizations, including Slate, have noted that Kerry said he opposed the war as Bush conducted it, not categorically. Giuliani doesn't care. He repeats that Kerry "declared himself as the antiwar candidate." Putting more words in Kerry's mouth, Giuliani says the senator claimed "that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein [italics mine] prefer him" to Bush. And referring to Kerry's claim that he voted "for the $87 billion [for postwar Iraq appropriations] before I voted against it," Giuliani jokes that Kerry needs two Americas so that in the second America, "he can vote against exactly the same thing" he voted for in the first America. The delegates roar their approval, but it's a lie. What Kerry voted for was an alternative that would have paid for the $87 billion by rolling back Bush's tax cut.

Disingenuous?

GIULIANI: He even, at one point, declared himself as an anti-war candidate. And now he says he's a pro-war candidate!

Except that, no, he actually doesn’t. Kerry doesn’t say he’s “a pro-war candidate”—and every journalist in America knows it. But so what? Half-witted delegates laughed and nodded, pleased to be treated like fools by their host. And Rudy wasn’t about to deprive them of their dumbest and most pleasing moment:

GIULIANI: My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words, not mine. I quote John Kerry: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

And how did the Republican National Convention react to Rudy Guiliani, one of the GOP primetime speakers blatantly distorting the truth(or for you Democrats out there--lying)? How did Republicans feel about one of their Convention speakers looking right into the camera--looking America into the eye--and repeatedly and knowingly saying things that weren't true?

Mr. Giuliani turned from sober to animated, gesturing broadly as he lampooned Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper. The crowd, which shrank in size as the night went on, whooped in appreciation.

They whooped in appreciation! Thanks, Rudi, for bullshitting for the cause! Fucking A, Rudi, way to bah-huuuuuul shit! Ya ol' bullshittin' N'yorker, you! You keep this up, ol' Georgie is gonna make you an honorary Texas turd blossom!

How embarrassing for Rudi. How embarrassing for the GOP. Though, not unexpected. Because who can forget Bush's first triumphant convention?

The U.S. Army said Friday that Bush was wrong when he said in his speech Thursday night to the Republican National Convention that two of the Army's 10 divisions were not ready to fight.

Bush had said: "If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ..., 'Not ready for duty, sir.'"

But Maj. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman, told CNN: "All 10 Army divisions are combat-ready, fully able to meet their war-fighting mission."

And, of course, Bush just completely made that up. Completely. No truth to it, at all. Just invented it. He just looked America right in the eye and lied to them.

So, you know, it's sort of a tradition.

That's how much the GOP respects the people who vote for it. The GOP thinks its constituents are stupid. The GOP thinks its constituents will believe anything.

"Therefore we have to look ahead and say, ok, so we'll win the fight we're in but we also have to create a world where we have more partners and fewer potential terrorists. And how are we going to do that? We have to spread the benefits and shrink the burdens of the 21st century world, number one. Number two, we have to deal with the fact that most terrorists come from places that aren't democracies. And number three, we have to deal with the special challenges presented in the Muslim world, because Islam's our fastest growing religion in America, and we have to lift up the positive forces there, and encourage those with enough courage to stand up for them." -- Bill Clinton, November 7, 2001, Georgetown University, devlivering a speech on defeating terrorism by creating conditions where the use of terror is less acceptable in parts of the world.

"Clinton's prescription for victory was: 'First we have to do more to reduce poverty and create more economic opportunity'...Everyone wishes he'd just go away and stop sending himself botulism out of anthrax envy." Ann Coulter, November 14, 2001, leading the Republican charge on spewing venom on Bill Clinton and the minds of stupid liberals, who think there might be a way to prevent terrorism by making it less acceptable in parts of the world.

"I don't think you can win it." The president went on to say, "I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." George W. Bush, August 29, 2004.

"And those free nations, in the heart of the Middle East, will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which will be detriment for these terrorists to recruit." George W. Bush, August 31, 2004, trying, in a garbled mouthed way, to say that we need to, as Bill Clinton said, "deal with the fact that most terrorists come from places that aren't democracies" and "we have to lift up the positive forces there, and encourage those with enough courage to stand up for them".

President Bush tried today to stop the political fallout over his comments last weekend that the war on terror might not be winnable. Indeed, "we will win" that war, Mr. Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in Nashville.

"We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win," Mr. Bush said.

...

"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Mr. Bush told the American Legion delegates. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

...

The president's unambiguous remarks today contrasted with a statement he had made in the interview with Mr. Lauer, which was broadcast on Monday. When he was asked about the war on terrorism, Mr. Bush replied, "I don't think you can win it." The president went on to say, "I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

...

The chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today that some people were "trying to create a false perception" by asserting that the president had shifted his stance, when in fact, Mr. McClellan said, he had not.

Scott, Scott, Scott...let's review:

"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world." -- George Bush, July 30, 2004

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.” --New York Daily News, August 29, 2004

"But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win." -- George Bush, August 30, 2004

We have a clear vision on how to win the war. I don't think you can win the war. Make no mistake, we will win.

See any shifting of the ol' stance, there, Scott? See any Democrats involved with that?